ORDER R. S. JHA, ACTG. C. J. : – This revision has been referred to the Full Bench for decision on the following questions, which are as follows : –

“(i) Whether an order passed under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 would be an interlocutory order so that it will not be covered under the meaning of section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 ? (ii) Whether against an order passed under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or an appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, would be available ?”

2. Before we advert to the issues referred to us, it is briefly noted that the present proceeding arises from the order dated 5-12-2018 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Rehli, District Sagar, in H. M. No. 33/2017 whereby the application filed by the respondent wife under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, has been allowed and a sum of Rs. 7,000/- has been ordered to be paid to her as maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings.

3. The applicant husband, being aggrieved by the order passed by the First Additional District Judge, Rehli, District Sagar has filed Civil Revision No. 150/2019 under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The respondent wife has objected to the maintainability of the Revision on the ground that the order in question is interlocutory in nature and, therefore, no appeal or revision is maintainable against the same.

4. Noticing the conflict of opinion between the two Division Bench decisions of this Court in the case of Sailesh Mishra vs. Vibha Tiwari, F. A. No. 118/2015 dated 30-9-2015 and Prafull Kumar vs. Smt. Asha, F. A. No. 764/2015 dated 26-10-2016, the questions as stated above have been referred for being answered to this Full Bench.

5. Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984, provides for filing of an appeal and revision and is in the following terms : –

“19. Appeal. – (1) Save as provided in sub-section (2) and notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) or in the Code or Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or in any other law, an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Family Court to the High Court both on facts and on law. (2) No appeal shall lie from a decree or order passed by the Family Court with the consent of the parties [or from an order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) : Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any appeal pending before a High Court or any order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) before the commencement of the Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 1991. (3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the judgment or order of a Family Court. (4) The High Court may, of its own motion or otherwise, call for an examine the record of any proceeding in which the Family Court situate within its jurisdiction passed an order under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order, not being an interlocutory order, and as to the regularity of such proceeding. (5) Except as aforesaid, no appeal or revision shall lie to any Court from any judgment, order or decree of a Family Court. (6) An appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall be heard by a Bench consisting of two or more Judges.”

6. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which deals with the maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings, is in the following terms : –

“24. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings. – Where in any proceedings under this Act it appears to the Court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, o